Writing in Auditory Digital

Silly me.

For all the writing in visual, auditory or kinesthetic language I’ve been doing, I didn’t realize that you can also write in auditory digital.

I knew it was the internal dialogue modality and the downward right eye accessing cue of normally ordered individuals. I didn’t realize I’d been using it all along or that the predicates (cue words) belonged to that modality.

That explains why I’d thought a number of my speeches were insightful (dare I say even fascinating), but other folks didn’t see it… it didn’t ring true for them… or they weren’t feeling it.

I’d been speaking auditory digital to the near exclusion of the other modalities. When I’ve added them in, I didn’t realize any significant improvement in delivery but the response was much better. Go figure.

And then there’s always the classic NLP mismatch to sum it all up:

A guy walks into a therapist’s office and says, "No one is listening to me!"

The therapist replies, "I see."

8 Responses

  1. Hi. Great site you have here.

    Writing in digital auditory; would that context be like writing nonsense? 🙂

    It would seem to me that the auditory digital framework is closer to “clean” language, which can allow the listener or reader to put the meaning into their own most useful system of understanding.

    When originally dealing with a client, for example, AD would seem to pollute (with your own rep. systems) the least.

    But with regard to advertising communication, wouldn’t your strategy be toward the “self identification” of the target audience instead of trying to peg the greatest rep. system?

  2. Dorian,

    Yes, writing without a sense would be non-sense.

    Some NLP folks find it useful to think of AD as its own modality. If that’s so, then using it may not be any cleaner than any of the other modalities. Rather than connecting, they’ll perceive that language as academic or analytical.

    Generally speaking, I don’t think it would be possible to use much clean language toward a group since everyone uses their own metaphors. To the degree that there are shared metaphors, you can use it.

    Yes, your message will generally be more effective with “self identification.” That’s more easily achieved through patterns like deletion, generalized referential index, quotes patterns, therapeutic metaphor, etc.

    Using a variety of modalities gives your reader the opportunity to build rapport with you. Rather than pegging the greatest, it’s more about finding the most relevant representational system. IMHO anyway.

    Thanks for the comment. I had to think about that one for a bit.

  3. Okay, if you don’t mind, let’s go a step deeper. Here’s a description of the problem. In science there is a deep disconnect with religion. Science speaks to the world using almost exclusively audio digital language.

    (And yet its description “of” the world is through each of the five senses; it measures sound, movement, light, and so forth, making logical and rational relationships about them. Supernatural doesn’t exist in science as there is no frame of reference for testing the validity of something that can’t be verified.)

    Religion speaks almost exclusively to the emotional, generally devoid of rationalization altogether. Science, however, depends on rationalization.

    In religion, for instance, you can have 72 virgin wives in a heaven no one can prove exists in the first place, and yet people are convinced they’ll go their “after” they’re already dead. This idea cannot be verified and yet the belief is treated “as if” it’s a foregone fact by over a billion people.

    And so the question is: How do you bridge the communication gap between the rational, real world, of demonstrable fact, with the imaginary world of faith. How do you do this by way of language?

    Which, or where, is that “most relevant representational system” you’re talking about?

    This is why I’m interested in “clean” language. I’m looking for a method of common communication that speaks to the “truth” of a proposition without the inherent bias of the communicator or listener.

    E-prime is a good start, but in verbal communication, it sounds almost condescending. How does a Richard Dawkins, for example, speak to a crowed of evangelicals in a way that respects the outer without demeaning the inner?

  4. Dorian – wow – that’s quite a step deeper. Here’s my take on that…

    You have several levels of meaning that it’s useful to extract. You have the scientific establishment (primarily atheistic) vs the scientific method and both of those things are typically called science.

    You have the religious establishment and the experience and practice of spirituality. Sometimes those two things overlap but usually not. It’s often been the case that the religious establishment has persecuted those who practice deeper spirituality beyond the approved “faith.”

    Every religion has mystical elements to it that try to bridge the gap – Christians have mystics, some charismatics, gnostics and Unitarians. Every other major religion has their own versions. There are also scientists from each of those religions trying to bridge the gap… most notably through quantum physics (See the DVD, “What the Bleep!?”)

    It really depends on what you’re trying to accomplish on how you’d want to go about bridging the gap. Are you trying to reconcile fundamentalists Atheists with fundamentalists of any other religion? Are you trying to reconcile conflicts in the Middle East? Or are you trying to sell something? What would Richard Dawkins want to accomplish with a group of evangelicals?

    The thing copywriters make a practice of is settling on a target (donate money, buy a product, vote for a candidate, etc) and work backwards from there. You get inside the head of your audience and speak within their world view in as much as possible.

    It’s usually advisable to speak free of jargon (clean language) to a wider audience. If you’re speaking to an audience with a shared vocabulary, you’d want to use it. Richard Dawkins would want to use as much genuine Christian-ese as possible if he wanted to be well received. If they recognized that he was faking it in an attempt to build rapport, it would backfire. If I were him, I’d send someone else who’s sympathetic to both sides instead.

    The “most relevant representational system” I referred to is going to be different from individual to individual. I may be mistaken but my understanding is that many NLPers use “representational system” interchangeably with “modalities.” That was the context I was using it in.

  5. Thank you.

    I appreciate the scope of your answer which can be summed up by the following paragraph, when you wrote:

    “It really depends on what you’re trying to accomplish on how you’d want to go about bridging the gap. Are you trying to reconcile fundamentalists Atheists with fundamentalists of any other religion? Are you trying to reconcile conflicts in the Middle East? Or are you trying to sell something? What would Richard Dawkins want to accomplish with a group of evangelicals?”

    My particular purpose is twofold. First, to establish a communication mode that is trusted by each side and in which each side can be fluent in communicating “like” meanings. A common language mode.

    Second, a mode which eliminates inherent assumptions that lack explicit qualifications.

    (That’s why e-prime seemed to be a good candidate in its intent, but I’m really looking for something more robust, that could be easily used in speaking as well as writing.) A mode of language that promotes “truth by specificity”, not by generalization.

    Silly me would have assumed Audio Digital to be perfect… Until you noted how “it didn’t ring true for them!”

    I found that surprising. Though it might be that you were trying to “convince” (sales) them instead of trying to educate them in a way that would actually make them understand the “meaning” of the communication instead of its truthfulness.

    The problem is that I run into lots and lots and lots and lots of what I call “horoscope talk”.

    This allows way too much leeway in tackling the truth of any proposition. It appears to be the foundation of credulity. It is therefore a communication problem.

    But that, in a nutshell, has been my dilemma.

    PS: Thanks for the input, Louis.

    Again, nice blog!

Leave a Reply